campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Nkayesmith/ALLPOVSandbox
Organising perspectives Main issue here is that they are not readable (too long, not worth the space), and I forsee redundancy. --Nkayesmith 08:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC) :One idea that'll go towards the goal of summarizing the perspectives is the polling idea, although I'm sure whosawhatsis would not like this as it does not appreciate that every point of view is nuanced and unique. --Nkayesmith 08:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC) ::I think one of my main concerns about forcing All Points of View is that people on one side of an argument (Position A) would need to summarize the position of the other side (Position B), often without an understanding or with a skewed understanding of what that alternative position is. That could either be insulting to the opposition and encourage abuse of Position A's text by those supporting Position B, potentially causing an edit war. "You said this about our view, so we can correct your misconceptions too." I'd rather have someone who knows and believes in Position A focus on that side of the argument, and give a blank space for supporters of Position B to present their side without fear of having their meaning twisted. For example, I'm unwilling to help those people who oppose Same-sex marriage, not because I don't agree with them and want to discourage them from posting by twisting their words, but because I honestly can't understand most of their objections. I wouldn't want to try and articulate their thoughts, because I don't share them. I think it's going to be tough enough to encourage people to come and present their views when their opponents already have, something that would become even more difficult if they see that someone without a clue about what they stand for has already tried to present their viewpoint. Unless people are comfortable with Wiki systems, they're not going to automatically think that they can edit someone else's work. But if they see a blank spot waiting for them, they'll be more likely to dive in. Chadlupkes 13:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC) The biggest problem with the ALLPOV proposal is that it tries to cover too much in one policy, making it feel like a bill in congress with a bunch of riders. APOV, SSP, and CatP, work together to cover just about everything in ALLPOV that I agree with and allows those points to be adopted or rejected separately. --whosawhatsis? 20:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC) :Did you mean Campaigns Wikia:Allow Points of View above? Having these named so close is a problem as well. Chadlupkes 20:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC) ::Yes, fixed now. And yes, that is a problem. --whosawhatsis? 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC) How about copyleft or copycenter text copied onto the wiki? :I'm not sure about the legal stuff, but I think anything copied from another site should be referenced with a link to the source. The staff will have to express the rules on copyright/center/left question. Chadlupkes 22:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC) :That sounds like an issue for another proposal (added 02:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)). I think that such inclusions should be quoted and cited, even if their source's license does not require it. By doing so, their inclusion qualifies as NPOV. --whosawhatsis? 22:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC) :Agreed. I mentioned this because ALLPOV says: :Points of view can be copied from copycenter or copyleft mediums :So I was actually talking about 1POV or APOV places. --Nkayesmith 22:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC) ::NPOV is used for stating facts. When something is quoted and cited, you are stating the fact that your source said it. This is always allowed within APOV, and within 1POV if it can be used to build a supporting argument for the POV. If you copy the content without quoting/citing, you are making the same statements and claims made in the source, which may or may not comply with the policy. It is also plagiarism, whether the license permits it or not. --whosawhatsis? 01:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Structure, and Type of Articles This has become more of a policysandbox, and some policies need clearly defined types and structure of articles. I'll mention these to types to start off: 1. Issue Made up of: :*Background ::''fact - Made of NPOV background to the issue, and current government policies. ::Should also give links to similar issues. For example the terrorism page talks a lot about the emphasis on terrorism, which should be it's title. :*Arguments in support ::ALLPOV version 2 or derivatives (of course, this is only what I want :) ) - Pro and even supporting arguments ::sounds like the page will be fact. ::As it is, I like: ::This page is an attempt to summarize the POV of x from the perspective of those who are against x ::but there needs to be more policies about who modifies this section and what goes there. Currently, what goes there is the POV (by this I mean the subtle and nuanced POVs) of those who are bold (only the case for some articles). :::Ideas: :::*Major points in a discussion on perspectives page. :::*Points of View expressed on numerous copyleft/center mediums (i.e. Blogs) :::(POVs expressed only on small number of mediums should go on perspectives) :::*Points of View expressed by notable figures (notable needs a policy to define things like Is Paris Hilton's POV notable?) and movements (note for discussion: this would be rewording someone else's POV. Or should we wait until Bush signs up so that we don't get straw-man arguments?) :*Opposition ::ALLPOV version 2 or derivates - Again, cons, for me, sounds like too much fact. Feel free to continue this. I obviously haven't finished. I need a clear definition of the proposal tab from someone with more experience. --Nkayesmith 22:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC) :Perspectives is for summaries of the nuanced POVs of individuals in signed statements. Any POV that supports whatever the 'pro' page is supporting belongs on that page, but the nuances should be minimized to boil the POVs down to supporting arguments. This does not require the exclusion of POVs with more obscure sets of nuances. ::I believe that any perspective, pro/con/other, should be welcome on the Perspectives page. The Pro and Con (or whatever titles they take) pages would be a boiled down summary of the general position trying to be articulated. :::Thanks for clarifying that. I agree. --whosawhatsis? 01:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC) ::'Proposal' is where we take the facts and come up with a way of solving the problem or dealing with the issue that all sides can come to agreement on. This is the sausage factory of lore, and it's not going to be pretty until we get good at it. Chadlupkes 01:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC) :Notable figures should ideally be quoted directly. When this is not possible, their views can be summarized, but those summaries are open to editing for factual corrections. If there is a dispute about the facts of what an individual believes, it should be settled on the associated talk page. If an agreement cannot be met, 3rr takes over and a vote is called on the assumption that those who misunderstand the facts will be in a minority. It would be nice if people like Bush would join so that we can get their views, but realistically it's far more likely that someone will join claiming to be them for the purpose of misrepresentation. --whosawhatsis? 23:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC) ::Which raises another point: Do we want a policy regarding the procedure for confirming the identity of notable individuals? --Nkayesmith 00:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC) :::Yes, we should probably come up with a way to confirm the identities of politicians (or anyone else intending to edit as a "real person" (as mentioned in SSP)), but that's an issue for a separate policy. --whosawhatsis? 00:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC) ::::Of course. As I said, this is becoming like a PolicySandbox. Before I propose something, does anybody have any ideas? --Nkayesmith 00:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC) :::::I have started a page for the proposal, but it still needs work. --whosawhatsis? 00:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 2. Electorate and larger areas :Links to area-specific issues and lists elections, candidates etc. --Nkayesmith 22:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)